Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10757688"

See other formats


Serial No. 10/757,688 



-8- 



RE MARKS 

Applicants have amended claims 1 , 9, and 1 8. No new matter has been added by 
way of these amendments. In view of the above amendments and the following remarks, 
reconsideration of the outstanding office action is respectfully requested. 

The Office has rejected claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22-29 are 
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,438,657 to 
Nakatani (Nakatani), in view of US Patent No. 7,197,702 to Niyogi et al. (Niyogi), and 
further view of US Patent No. 7,272,258 to Berkner et al. (Berkner), claims 3, 12, and 21 under 
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakatani in view of Niyogi in view of US Patent 
(Berkner), and further in view of US Patent No. 6,778,703 to Zlotnick (Zlotnick), and Claims 8, 
17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakatani in view of Niyogi in view 
of Berkner and further in view of US Patent No. 6,519,617 Wanderski et al. (Wanderski). 

Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, and Wanderski, alone or in combination, do 
not disclose or suggest, "an identification system configured to identify a designated output 
system. . . wherein the mutation system determines which of the one or more mutators to apply 
based on one or more characteristics of the designated output system" as recited in claim 1, "an 
identification system configured to identify a designated output system ... wherein the applying 
further comprises determines which of the one or more mutators to apply based on one or more 
characteristics of the designated output system" as recited in claim 9, or "identifying a 
designated output system ... wherein the applying further comprises determines which of the one 
or more mutators to apply based on one or more characteristics of the designated output system" 
as recited in claim 18. 

The Office has asserted "Nakatani and Niyogi et al. does not expressly teach 
to form a mutated portion in the original document, wherein the mutation system determines 
which of the one or more mutators to apply based on one or more characteristics of the 
designated output system. However, the Office asserts Berkner teaches ... to form a mutated 
portion in the original document, wherein the mutation system determines which of the one 
or more mutators to apply based on one or more characteristics of the designated output 
system whereas one or more mutators/reflow operations are applied based upon output 
display constraints." 



8010167 1.DOC 



Serial No. 10/757,688 



-9- 



Contrary to the Office's assertion Berkner teaches the reflow of text operations 
are performed with respect to the size of the constrained output display representation. 
which is the height and width of a canvas or target size of a document, not the characteristics 
of the designated output system, e.g., a printer as recited in claims 1, 9, and 18. Byway of 
example only, the Office's attention is directed to column 5, lines 54-67, and column 6, lines 
1-3 of Berkner which states: 

"In one embodiment, formatter 112 comprises a scale selector 
1 12A to select the scale for each text zone, a reflow 
computation unit 1 12B to perform reflow on the text zones , 
and a layout unit 1 12C to generate the layout of the 
constrained display document representation or constrained 
display output image. Reflow of text is well-known. For 
example, see U.S. Pat. No. 6,043,802, entitled "Resolution 
Reduction Technique For Displaying Documents on a 
Monitor," issued to Gormish, et al. discloses reflow of text in 
scanned documents for display on a monitor. These reflow 
operations performed by formatter 1 12 are all performed in 
response to receiving the display constraints 120 with respect 
to the size of the constrained output display representation, 
such as, for example, height and width. These constraints 
may also be called a canvas size or target image size. " 
(emphasis added) 



Furthermore, the term "representation" disclosed throughout Berkner is used 
in regards to a representation of the original scanned document, e.g., another form of the 
original document. Thus, the constrained output display representation in Berkner is not 
equivalent or analogous to an output system, e.g.. a printer as recited in claims 1, 9, and 18. 
Byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to Claims 2, 18, and 22 of Berkner 
which states: 

"wherein the image comprises a representation of the scanned 
document at a target size smaller than that of the document" 

Additionally, byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to 
column 5, lines 11-14, of Berkner which states: 

"A technique is described that uses layout analysis information 
given by performing document analysis to reformat a scanned 
document image into a constrained display document 
representation. " (emphasis added) 



8010167 1JX5C 



Serial No. 10/757,688 



- 10- 



In sharp contrast, the present invention determines which of the mutators to use 
based on the characteristics of the output device on which the original document is going to be 
displayed, e.g, a printer. Byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to paragraph 
[0025], lines 17-26 of the above-identified patent application: 

"[0025] In step 110, the document processing system 12 determines 
which of the one or more mutators obtained from the identified, 
stored document to use on the selected portion of the original 
document. The document processing system 12 determines which of 
the mutators to use based on the characteristics of the device on 
which the original document is going to be displayed and based on 
one or more elements of the original document, although other 
manners for determining which of the mutators to select can be used. 
For example, if the printer 14 selected for the printing job is a black 
and-white printer, then a mutator for altering color obtained from the 
identified, stored document is irrelevant and would not used by the 
document processing system 12." 

Accordingly, neither Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, nor Wanderski, alone 
or in combination, teach or suggest determining which of the one or more stored mutators to 
apply based on one or more characteristics of the designated output system, as recited in 
claims 1, 9, and 18. 

Additionally, Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, and Wanderski, alone or in 
combination, do not disclose or suggest, "a mutation system . . . having obtained one or more 
mutators from a list of stored mutators which correspond to particular types of documents, 
wherein the mutation system determines which of the one or more mutators to apply based on 
. . . the type of document that matches the portion of the original document." as now recited 
in claim I, and "having obtained one or more mutators from a list of stored mutators which 
correspond to particular types of documents, wherein the applying further comprises 
determines which of the one or more stored mutators to apply based on . . . system and the 
type of document that matches the portion of the original document." as now recited in claim 
9, and "having obtained one or more mutators from a list of stored mutators which 
correspond to particular types of documents, wherein the applying further comprises 
determines which of the one or more stored mutators to apply based on . . . system and the 
type of document that matches the portion of the original document." as now recited in claim 
18. 



8010167 1.DOC 



Serial No. 10/757,688 



- 11 - 



Byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to paragraph [0025] of 
the above-identified patent application: 

[0025] In step 110, the document processing system 12 determines 
which of the one or more mutators obtained from the identified, 
stored document to use on the selected portion of the original 
document. The document processing system 12 determines which of 
the mutators to use based on the characteristics of the device on 
which the original document is going to be displayed and based on 
one or more elements of the original document, although other 
manners for determining which of the mutators to select can be used. 
For example, if the printer 14 selected for the printing job is a black- 
and-white printer, then a mutator for altering color obtained from the 
identified, stored document is irrelevant and would not used by the 
document processing system 12. In another example, the document 
processing system 12 could have lists of mutators stored in memory 
20 which are associated with particular types of documents, such as 
for text documents, documents with text and images, and documents 
with images, and then the document processing system 12 would 
determine to use the obtained mutators that were on appropriate stored 
list for the type of document that matches the portion of the original 
document or the original document. (Emphasis added) 



Accordingly, the present invention selects a mutator from a list of stored mutators and 
then applies the mutator based upon the particular types of documents that matches the portion of 
the original document. Neither Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, nor Wanderski, alone or in 
combination, teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation. 

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, the Office is 
respectfully requested to reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 18. Since 
claims 2-8 and 27 depend from and contain the limitations of claim 1, claims 10-17 and 28 depend 
from and contain the limitations of claim 9, and claims 19-26 and 29 depend from and contain the 
limitations of claim 18, they are distinguishable over the cited references and patentable in the 
same manner as claims 1, 9, and 18. 



8010167 1.DOC 



Serial No. 10/757,688 



- 12- 



In view of all of the foregoing, Applicants submit that this case is in condition 
for allowance and such allowance is earnestly solicited. 

Respectfully submitted, 



Date: May 6. 2011 /Gerald F. Gibbs. Jr./ 

Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. 
Registration No. 64,715 

LECLAIRRYAN 
290 Linden Oaks 
Suite 310 

Rochester, New York 14625 
Telephone: (585)270-2117 
Facsimile: (585)270-2179 



8010167 1.DOC